Election 2020

[GwynnInTheHall]

I read it’s going to be a rematch? Democrats are sticking with her? I will double check

Well if they think Garcia can't be beat--I'd stay with Smith, but if they want the seat back--they should go with someone else. Garcia won pretty handily and as you said--is somewhat of a dream candidate for the GOP. Decent guy too, I have no issues with the GOP flipping this seat as he's a quality person from everything I've read about him.

[umjewman]

GOP wins a couple of special elections on Tuesday.
No surprise in Wisconsin, but in a district Trump won by 20, the 14 point margin should be concerning to them.
In California, Garcia flipped a district from red to blue for the first time in CA since 1998. Certainly a good win for him (and by what appears to be a surprising margin) but they will face off again in November. Garcia is a dream GOP candidate (Hispanic veteran) but with much heavier turnout in November, he will have his hands full keeping the seat. All in all though, I am sure the GOP is thrilled with the result.

Isn't the district really more of a red one anyway? That seat was GOP from 1993-2019. Then Hill had it for less than a year before she resigned. Seems like Garcia should have won, no? Either way, I am sure the GOP is thrilled regardless.

[Sour Masher]

The Reade allegations matter to me, so I continue to follow stories to learn more about her. I know many here assume anything about her is partisan and selective, but the more I learn about her, the less trustworthy she seems to be. This politico story paints a picture of a manipulative immoral person who is comfortable with lying and consistently praised Biden until recently. I still believe she told LaCasse and others something happened, and I suspect something untoward like a pass did happen, but I no longer believe we can ever know exactly what occurred based solely on her ever evolving story. She simply is not a reliable or trustworthy witness.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...ntances-260771

[Teenwolf]

The Reade allegations matter to me, so I continue to follow stories to learn more about her. I know many here assume anything about her is partisan and selective, but the more I learn about her, the less trustworthy she seems to be. This politico story paints a picture of a manipulative immoral person who is comfortable with lying and consistently praised Biden until recently. I still believe she told LaCasse and others something happened, and I suspect something untoward like a pass did happen, but I no longer believe we can ever know exactly what occurred based solely on her ever evolving story. She simply is not a reliable or trustworthy witness.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...ntances-260771

What did you think of her ex-husbands testimony in her divorce trial in the 90's? It doesn't help his divorce case at all, yet he believed her and backed up her claims. Kinda like the neighbour, what did she have to gain? These witnesses are sharing what she told them, from around the time the alleged incident happened. Their credibility hasn't been questioned.

I think contemporaneous witnesses are worth more than biased politico pieces, or twitter threads from disgraced former journalists with admittedly serious fucking memory problems. All based on the assertion that his sexual assault made him an expert. What a fucking joke.

I think Tara Reade has been driven crazy. I don't think it makes her disclosure of Biden's assault, from the time it happened, less credible. This case has way more evidence than Kavanaugh's case. He had several witnesses to other lewd behaviour, but almost nothing that could tie him to the assault in question. Biden's assault case, by comparison, contains much more.

[Sour Masher]

What did you think of her ex-husbands testimony in her divorce trial in the 90's? It doesn't help his divorce case at all, yet he believed her and backed up her claims. Kinda like the neighbour, what did she have to gain? These witnesses are sharing what she told them, from around the time the alleged incident happened. Their credibility hasn't been questioned.

I think contemporaneous witnesses are worth more than biased politico pieces, or twitter threads from disgraced former journalists with admittedly serious fucking memory problems. All based on the assertion that his sexual assault made him an expert. What a fucking joke.

I think Tara Reade has been driven crazy. I don't think it makes her disclosure of Biden's assault, from the time it happened, less credible. This case has way more evidence than Kavanaugh's case. He had several witnesses to other lewd behaviour, but almost nothing that could tie him to the assault in question. Biden's assault case, by comparison, contains much more.

Yes, she was sharing stories of Biden harassing her early on. That is why I think it happened. However, her story was different to each person and evolved over time. It is not uncommon for someone to hold back information in a case like this, especially the most traumatic or embarrassing parts, and my underlying belief that Biden did something to her that was inappropriate remains. But her ever changing story on through the growing number of revelations of her untrustworthiness make it impossible to believe any one account, let alone her latest account as being entirely accurate. Yes, bad things can and do happen to imperfect people, but unfortunately when those people's imperfections include a pattern of manipulative behavior, and wildly inconsistent stances, from frequent statement of admiration for Biden and the work he has done to combat sexual assault to accusing him of it, it becomes impossible to trust her most recent allegations as the gospel truth.

Biden has a very long history of inappropriate behavior, much of it on camera for all to see. It is highly believable that he said inappropriate things to Reade, and made her feel uncomfortable. Yet despite everything we know about Biden's inappropriateness, there are no other reports of him raping someone. That in itself does not discount her claims, but the fact that she claims it happened not when Biden was a drink hormonal adolescent, but a mature, sober man make a one off assault like this far less likely. And, again, it is one thing to be silent on the worst of the incident, it is quite another to continually name drop the man and laud him for his work on sexual assault. I just don't believe most people would do that if Biden crossed the line she now claims he crossed.

You admit she seems crazed. Maybe she wasn't before, but she seems so now and now is also when her most explicit and damning claims are being made.

[Sour Masher]

PBS interviewed 62 former female staffers and 74 staffers overall and not a single one they contacted said they experienced sexual harassment or misconduct from Joe Biden.

[Sour Masher]

PBS interviewed 62 former female staffers and 74 staffers overall and not a single one they contacted said they experienced sexual harassment or misconduct from Joe Biden. Not a one even heard rumors of such behavior.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...es-allegations

[Teenwolf]

PBS interviewed 62 former female staffers and 74 staffers overall and not a single one they contacted said they experienced sexual harassment or misconduct from Joe Biden.

For fuck sake. He has several allegations of invading personal space, hugging with a vice grip, sniffing, kissing, and creeping out several people he worked with. Did you just forget about those women, or do you think being a general creep only counts if there's a finger-bang? Ridiculous.

[Sour Masher]

For fuck sake. He has several allegations of invading personal space, hugging with a vice grip, sniffing, kissing, and creeping out several people he worked with. Did you just forget about those women, or do you think being a general creep only counts if there's a finger-bang? Ridiculous.

No, if you have read my posts on Biden, it is clear I have not forgotten that, but apparently none of the women PBS contacted found such behavior to rise to the level of sexual harassment or misconduct. I have already said many times that Biden has frequently crossed the line into inappropriate behavior. But yeah, to me it matters a lot if the extent of his infractions involves not respecting personal space, unwanted touching that may not be sexual, and general behavior that is creepy but not sexual assault, or if he slammed a woman against the wall and forcefully violated her. Especially because I believe who he is running against has crossed that line. And is a racist. And has caused and continues to cost lives by his disastrous pandemic response.

Biden has never been my candidate, but I believe he is better than the alternative by a long shot. It matters to me if he crossed a line that would make it impossible for me to vote for him and actively support him. Looking at all the evidence over a long period of time, I do not believe the specific accuser is credible enough regarding him crossing that line for me to abstain from voting for him against a man who I do believe committed worse acts and I know with certainty is worse for this country as POTUS.

[Gregg]

No, if you have read my posts on Biden, it is clear I have not forgotten that, but apparently none of the women PBS contacted found such behavior to rise to the level of sexual harassment or misconduct. I have already said many times that Biden has frequently crossed the line into inappropriate behavior. But yeah, to me it matters a lot if the extent of his infractions involves not respecting personal space, unwanted touching that may not be sexual, and general behavior that is creepy but not sexual assault, or if he slammed a woman against the wall and forcefully violated her. Especially because I believe who he is running against has crossed that line. And is a racist. And has caused and continues to cost lives by his disastrous pandemic response.

Biden has never been my candidate, but I believe he is better than the alternative by a long shot. It matters to me if he crossed a line that would make it impossible for me to vote for him and actively support him. Looking at all the evidence over a long period of time, I do not believe the specific accuser is credible enough regarding him crossing that line for me to abstain from voting for him against a man who I do believe committed worse acts and I know with certainty is worse for this country as POTUS.

Again this becomes "lesser of two evils."

At the very least Democrats now know what it is like to try to justify past actions to justify winning. This is what Repubs had to deal with in the last election.

It would appear that the mutual hatred of each other will blind all when dealing with party against party. Pointing at each side's sins to justify their own will never fix it.

[Sour Masher]

Again this becomes "lesser of two evils."

At the very least Democrats now know what it is like to try to justify past actions to justify winning. This is what Repubs had to deal with in the last election.

It would appear that the mutual hatred of each other will blind all when dealing with party against party. Pointing at each side's sins to justify their own will never fix it.

I'm not a fan of choosing the lesser of evils, but I don't see any evidence I find credible that Biden is evil. Creepy and inappropriate at times, and not as sharp as he was, a gaffe machine whose positions don't entirely match my own. But not evil. I don't think I'm justifying his past actions in taking that stance. If Joe Biden were a Democratic Donald Trump, I would not vote for him and would not support him and would not defend him.

And your second point is more true now than before Trump. I never villianized McCain or Romney. They were both solid, respectable candidates. Both were attacked by the left, but my hope is if the GOP puts up a similar candidate in the future, Dems will remember Trump and be more measured in their ciriticisms. I never villianized either Bush, although I think he is one of the worst presidents in history (nice guys, though--wouldn't mind having a beer with either, although senior had his own sexual assault issues late in life).

[revo]

Justin Amash decides not to run a 3rd party campaign, which is good because initial polls showed he was helping Trump more than hurting him.

[nots]

Justin Amash decides not to run a 3rd party campaign, which is good because initial polls showed he was helping Trump more than hurting him.

Maybe I should run for the Libertarian nomination. They are kind of running out of candidates.

[Sour Masher]

Justin Amash decides not to run a 3rd party campaign, which is good because initial polls showed he was helping Trump more than hurting him.

If he did that because of that polling data, mad props to him. Much respect Mr. Amash! I am surprised that any Libertarian candidate would hurt more than help Trump though.

[madducks]

Our expectations for presidential candidates have become too high. I blame Obama.